On Valentine’s Day 2019, J.P. Morgan gave a kiss to the blockchain/DLT community by announcing its JPM Coin– a branded stablecoin pegged to the dollar that will be used by its large institutional clients to settle payment transactions. Upon settlement, each coin would be burned and traded for a dollar. The ultimate benefits in the JPM Coin ecosystem will be found in the transaction speed and very low cost of execution. This is a bold move given that there are obvious short term negatives to J.P. Morgan in that the launch of such an ecosystem might initially cut into some custodial profits.

Perhaps driven by the fact no bank could ever really control Bitcoin, J.P. Morgan’s CEO previously said that Bitcoin was a fraud. It is likely no coincidence that this launch only took place after Bitcoin cratered by nearly 80% of its value. Moreover, this announced future use of a “digital coin” is very much something J.P. Morgan could exert some control over – hence its name, and would not even initially be made available to J.P. Morgan’s retail clients. It is assumed that would change over time as this coin matures and retail clients will eventually be able to use JPM Coins for mobile payment transactions or in lieu of a time-consuming wire transfer. Mastercard and Visa should likely take note about other potential future use cases.

On February 7, 2019– in a devastating blow to global surveillance advertising, Germany’s antitrust arm, the Federal Cartel Office, ruled that Facebook’s tying of its data collection practices to usage of its services was unlawful. In the public announcement of this ruling, the FCO president Andreas Mundt said: “Facebook will no longer be allowed to force its users to agree to the practically unrestricted collection and assigning of non-Facebook data to their Facebook user accounts.”

Interestingly, the FCO ruling considers the harm derived from Facebook’s data collection practices as the user’s “loss of control” rather than any specific pecuniary harm. If affirmed, this novel antitrust ruling could be a watershed in surveillance advertising sufficient to crack the existing digital ad ecosystem and allowing for new business models to finally take hold.

In its Annual Report filed on February 5, 2019, Google’s parent, Alphabet, Inc., emphasized in a more pronounced way the privacy regulatory and business headwinds it now faces. Specifically, on pages 9 and 10 of the report, Alphabet writes “as the focus on data privacy and security increases globally, we are and will continue to be subject to various and evolving laws. The costs of compliance with these laws and regulations are high and are likely to increase in the future.” It goes without saying, proper compliance will never be optional for the company given that Google’s surveillance advertising accounted for over 85% of its total revenues in 2018.

According to its 10-K, those laws and regulations that may subject Alphabet “to significant liabilities and other penalties” include:

The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 that comes into effect in January of 2020, and gives new data privacy rights to California residents and regulates the security of data in connection with internet connected devices.

Alphabet also warns: “Changes to our data privacy practices, as well as changes to third-party advertising policies or practices may affect the type of ads and/or manner of advertising that we are able to provide which could have an adverse effect on our business.” As pointed out by Bloomberg, this wording is not merely reused boilerplate but represents new language.

Even though the duopoly of Google and Facebook are not going away anytime soon, Alphabet’s latest filing is an acknowledgement that upcoming regulatory and market changes may limit how these companies do business. In other words, the free reign they have had for so many years may finally be coming to an end.

In the coming months, a divided Congress will likely begin a bipartisan effort to address one of the few bipartisan topics out there – data privacy rights. This effort may succeed if for no other reason next year launches California’s new data privacy regime and companies are feverishly lobbying behind the scenes to preempt this Consent Armageddon from materializing. In other words, there may soon be a “Data Property Day” coming into focus – the date when privacy rights that were born out of early constitutional and statutory underpinnings first became a basic property right.

That’s why we believe the Federal Trade Commission should establish a data-broker clearinghouse, requiring all data brokers to register, enabling consumers to track the transactions that have bundled and sold their data from place to place, and giving users the power to delete their data on demand, freely, easily and online, once and for all.

It is not difficult to cynically consider Apple’s new lobbying campaign simply an attempt at undercutting Samsung and Google – especially given Apple itself will always remain a very integral part of the digital ad ecosystem. In the near term, Apple faces little economic risk with its privacy-friendly posturing – only a potential increasing of its already lofty brand equity. Given that Apple is not technically a “data broker” the significant added costs to data brokers created by its advocacy will certainly not be absorbed by Apple.

According to Guidance provided earlier this month by the Attorney General’s Office, the type of consumer information subject to this new law includes: “People with incomes over $100,000,” “People who like to play billiards,” or “People preparing for a wedding.”

In addition to an annual registration, data brokers must also maintain certain protective measures involving those administrative, technical and physical safeguards appropriate for the scope and size of the business or face a potential unfair or deceptive practice claim under the state’s consumer protection law.

The statutory civil penalties of this new law are actually quite limited given that a data broker required to register who fails to do so will be subject to a penalty of $50 for each day it fails to register, beginning February 1, 2019, up to a maximum of $10,000 per year. The real bite is found in the potential civil action that may be brought under Vermont’s Consumer Protection Law, namely potential treble damages and reasonable attorneys’ fees. By linking privacy violations with an established consumer protection law, the Vermont statute nicely meshes existing law – and related interpretative rulings, into an effective privacy battle axe.

In a December 18, 2018 bombshell expose, the New York Times admits it as well as more than 150 companies — “most of them tech businesses, including online retailers and entertainment sites, but also automakers and media organizations”, received special access to Facebook user and friend information. For example, Microsoft was granted access to user names, Yahoo was able to view posts, Amazon could obtain contact information, and Netflix could even read, write and delete Facebook private messages as well as see all users on a particular thread. Today, these companies either deny the claims outright, claim they were not kept in the loop as to their access capabilities, or simply suggest that such practices terminated.

We shut down instant personalization, which powered Bing’s features, in 2014 and we wound down our partnerships with device and platform companies months ago, following an announcement in April. Still, we recognize that we’ve needed tighter management over how partners and developers can access information using our APIs. We’re already in the process of reviewing all our APIs and the partners who can access them.

Netflix told the Times it was “unaware of the broad powers Facebook had granted.” It further said: “At no time did we access people’s private messages on Facebook, or ask for the ability to do so.” A Microsoft spokesperson told CNBC in a statement: “Throughout our engagement with Facebook, we respected all user preferences.” In another statement to CNBC, Amazon said: “We only use information in accordance with our privacy policy.” Indeed, in the New York Times article, there is this self-reference: “The Times — one of nine media companies named in the documents — had access to users’ friend lists for an article-sharing application it also had discontinued in 2011. A spokeswoman for the news organization said it was not obtaining any data.”

Pushing aside the pristine parsing of words now being used, the fact remains Facebook users were never explicitly made aware of this massive exchange of consumer data between Facebook and its partners.

Not far different from this latest Facebook entangle, Vanderbilt University computer science professor Douglas C. Schmidt, in a study released in August 2018, found that: “A major part of Google’s data collection occurs while a user is not directly engaged with any of its products. And while such information is typically collected without identifying a unique user, Google distinctively possesses the ability to utilize data collected from other sources to de-anonymize such a collection.” Indeed, Android mobile devices send 10 times more data to Google than iPhones.

On August 13, 2018, the AP Newswire released an expose on Google’s geo-data collection practices – but only after retaining Princeton researchers to confirm exactly how Google was able to gather this data. Stemming from this usage of consumer information, there is a newly consolidated Google class action suit. Not surprisingly, Google is defending by claiming its data collection could be stopped by changing certain settings – users would simply need to turn off “web and app activity” settings that would, in effect, disrupt full usage of many of their apps.

With 2019 coming closer into view, it becomes clear that many companies using and maintaining consumer data will likely continue into the New Year with their existing practices given they do not really care about compliance risk – nor do users apparently really care about privacy risk. Until such time as the compliance and privacy risks are superseded by even greater risks – or overtaken by demonstrated economic benefits to both users and owners of data, it seems likely this status quo will remain intact in the coming year.

The first new business that can address this current apathy by creating tangible and easily understood economic benefits for all participants might very well succeed in modifying an entire ecosystem. The motivation for launching such an enterprise is readily apparent. As recognized in the Times article: “Personal data is the oil of the 21st century, a resource worth billions to those who can most effectively extract and refine it.”

On November 19, 2018, the UK’s Register reported how even though the Washington Post was in technical violation of the GDPR, the UK’s privacy enforcement arm, the Information Commissioner’s Office, admitted in private emails that it was not likely going to seek extra-jurisdictionally any potential penalties.

According to the Register, the Washington Post’s online subscription options offers readers a free option (for a limited number of articles); a $6 a month option (for unlimited articles); and a $9 a month option that allows users to switch off tracking and cookies. With the free and $6 a month options, readers, however, must consent to the use of cookies, tracking and ads.

Acting on a complaint apparently ginned up by the Register, a Case Manager from the UK ICO reviewed these policies and purportedly decided they were in violation of applicable privacy law. (“I am of the view that the Washington Post has not complied with their Data Protection obligations. This is because they have not given users a genuine choice and control over how their data is used.”).

Pushing aside the fact the pricing model set forth in the article may be stale – the current pricing is apparently set at a higher rate, and the fact EU residents can apparently opt out of the WaPo’s terms that may be in violation of GDPR, the article still brings home a very important point, namely that consent cannot truly be “freely given” when it is given only in response to a threatened change in pricing.

By way of background, Article 7 (4) of the EU’s GDPR states: “When assessing whether consent is freely given, utmost account shall be taken of whether, inter alia, the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is conditional on consent to the processing of personal data that is not necessary for the performance of that contract.” By charging a different price for the same services based solely on whether consent is given, there is certainly technical violation of GDPR.

Moreover, under the recently enacted Section 1798.103 (“Right to Equal Service and Price”) of the California Consumer Privacy Act, this alleged violation is made even more stark: “A business shall be prohibited from discriminating against a consumer because the consumer requested information pursuant to sections 1798.100 or 1798.101, or because the consumer directed the business not to sell the consumer’s personal information pursuant to section 1798.102, or because the consumer exercised the consumer’s rights to enforce this Act, including but not limited to, by: (a) denying goods or services to the consumer; (b) charging different prices or rates for goods or services, including through the use of discounts or other benefits or imposing penalties. . . .”

Between the recent 60 Minutes GDPR feature with Max Schrems – an educational piece that can only further draw consumer ire, or the actual four Complaints filed by Schrems that will likely resolve these issues, a Consent Armageddon is headed our way beginning in 2020 – the year CCPA also comes online and GDPR enforcement efforts will be more fully staffed. More importantly, with the proper mechanisms in place, sometime after 2020, data subjects will finally have the power to fully exert ownership and controlled use of their own data – a property class that should be treated no differently than gold or silver.

He played to his appreciative EU audience when he said: “We should celebrate the transformative work of the European institutions tasked with the successful implementation of the GDPR. . . . It is time for the rest of the world, including my home country, to follow your lead. . . . [Apple] is in full support of a comprehensive, federal privacy law in the United States”.

Data minimization — “the right to have personal data minimized” or not collect it in the first place;

Transparency — “the right to know what data is being collected and what it is being collected for” to “empower users to decide what collection is legitimate and what isn’t”;

The right to access — given “data belongs to users” it should be made easy for users to get a copy of, correct and delete their personal data; and

The right to security — given “security is foundational to trust and all other privacy rights”

According to Cook, the creation of extensive digital profiles “is surveillance. And these stockpiles of personal data serve only to enrich the companies that collect them. This should make us uncomfortable.”

After he dropped his mic, Cook quickly went on Twitter to double down on his speech:

It is not clear how his obviously well-thought out position will ultimately impact Apple’s bottom line. As previously observed, Apple has a natural symbiotic relationship with the social media platforms given “the smartphones that are the backbone of Apple’s success thrive in a social media environment where Facebook does exactly what it wants, namely provide “free” services that are habitually accessed throughout the day.”

Whether Cook is ultimately bluffing for PR points or believes his company’s lobbying can ultimately finesse any future legislative effort is beside the point. The most powerful tech company in the world has just thrown down the gauntlet for a unified US privacy regime. No different from the recently-enacted bipartisan anti-opioid abuse law, consumer privacy is a bipartisan issue so it is likely Congress will eventually come together to pick up Mr. Cook’s heavy glove. And, for that Mr. Cook deserves another loud round of applause.

Even though one online reviewer called it “[a] random walk through Silicon Valley without any goal, valuable information, conclusions or anything other than what would fit a gossip magazine”, Gilder’s book provides a grand thesis with very deliberate underpinnings. There are certainly many other books and articles out there that better inform regarding blockchain. Nevertheless, Gilder explains exactly why blockchain will in the future help cause Google lose its digital stranglehold. For that, his book largely stands alone.

Gilder has had close access to the elite tech digerati for decades. There is no denying he knows what and who he is talking about. The writing style, however, will not be everyone’s cup of tea. For example, applying a straw man style, he often builds up only to take down later in the book. This can easily be frustrating to readers. Also, an imagined meeting with Satoshi Nakamoto – the pseudonymous founder of Bitcoin, can either be considered a highlight of the book or downright hokey based on one’s literary taste.

To Gilder, Google’s downfall largely rests on its giving away free products without fully understanding how this zero-sum system neglects the value and impact of consumer time on Google’s $30 billion dollar Siren Servers – a Jaron Lanier term used to convey the eventual death spiral of a company blinded by its 75,000 server farm. Gilder reminds: “Without prices, all that is left to confine consumption is the scarcity of time”.

Interestingly, Jaron Lanier as well as Peter Thiel feature predominately in this book as the existential fodder for much of Gilder’s musings. The true sparkle, however, remains pure Gilder – including his view that Google’s fall is precipitated on the behemoth’s not fully understanding true wealth can only be a product of knowledge. As Gilder suggests, “wealth is not a thing or a random sequence. It is inextricably rooted in hard won knowledge over extended time.” How he eventually connects the many dots found in the book is worth the read despite the haphazard approach. And, despite valid style criticisms, given so few are walking down this exact path, Gilder’s trailblazing can only be lauded.

Using pokes and outright direct digs on failed exercises of socialism and a “World Saving” Artificial Intelligence fealty pursued by Elon Musk, Gilder’s libertarian bent thankfully expresses a brighter vision where creativity and humanity win out. He is on point – just ask Tim Berners-Lee about his startup, Inrupt to get additional perspective on Google. And, the decentralized web ecosystems exemplified by Blockstack and Hashgraph are certainly aimed at tearing down the current global ecosystems founded by the Tech Lords of Cali. Ultimately, in futurist Gilder’s vision, individuals win when they can more easily trust and be secure in their interactions.

Those seeking an actual name for the specific Google killer app will be disappointed. This book does not tell its readers which business vision will launch the “killer app” required to actually break the status quo. Readers are provided with an abstract roadmap lacking in specific directions because no specific killer app has been publicly announced yet and will likely not be released for another 24 months.